- Joined
- Feb 20, 2024
- Messages
- 4,728
- Reaction score
- 7,962
If you want to use the literal definition argument then that is an immediate loss for you. You are arguing that just because it doesn't physically exist it isn't stealing, while this is not true and totally illogical, you are stealing someone's hard work and labor no matter how you look at it. Just because technology has advanced to allow you do this on such a massive scale and nearly everyone participates it does not mean it is stealing. Even your own argument proves that is stealing, counterfeiting is also a form of theft by again the definition of the goddamn word.Words have a meaning, They mean what they mean. Piracy isn't theft, It's counterfeitting AT BEST. There is a distinct difference between the two.
If you REMOVED the money from my account you'd be stealing it, if you COPIED my money into your bank account, meaning my money was still in my account, you never stole it. You can get on your high horse all you want about what is the morally correct way to consume media, be my guest. But Piracy =/= theft. Shoplifting is theft. downloading a song is piracy.
Here's an exercise for ya dumb ass, If I purchased a CD at a store, then went home and downloaded it illegally One million times, Did they lose one million sales? No, obviously not you goofball.
I'm well aware of what the legal situation is, the legal situation is an admitted failure of the industry to combat piracy.If you want to teach other people, you should already know what the legal situation is. What you apparently don't know.
No they didn't I grew up during those times, while mixtapes were quite common the idea that 80% of people did not buy music is absolutely false. Copying from one tape to another would give you a serious loss in audio quality, people who listened to mix tapes would also buy the studio quality version once they knew they really liked the song or band. If it were anything like you think the musicians would never be living like kings would they ?On the other hand: In the 70s and 80s, when there were still music casettes, 80% of the people did not buy the music, but had friends recorded. And the musicians still lived like kings.
Yes I would, I likely started watching mma or nhb before you were born and back then the only way to watch any fights that weren't UFC was to rent them from blockbuster or order them through fighting magazines.And then: if there were not so many people who stream the UFC, there were probably only 10% of the amount of fans. Have you ever thought about it, senior teacher? And you wouldn't even know about the existence of MMA ...
buyings is definitely owning, but that stance from companies would have never happened if nearly their entire customer base didn't believe that piracy isn't stealingif buying isnt owning then piracy isnt stealing.
i have an ESPN+ account, why should i have to pay more for PPV when its an outdated format that almost no other market uses? why dont i get access to PPVs with my subscription? plus, the stream quality isnt that great either. a few times a night i will have to refresh the UFC stream because it freezes up. so what am i paying for here?
i have watched free streams that have better video quality and buffering than the paid service i use. if the service cannot meet the customers demands despite the customer giving them money for their service, then the customer is justified in finding a better alternative. thats business!
Lol well I'm just gonna say that you would give your left nut to live my life, that is if you even have one to spare, I wouldn't be surprised if you are a uniballer.You’re a complete LOSER ….. just saying